In apparent effort to appease the left-wing Twitter mob, the far-left Washington Post quickly rewrote its front page State of the Union headline.

Not long after the conclusion of President Trump’s extremely well-received State of the Union speech, the Post advertised what it promised would be “the front page of tomorrow’s Washington Post.” Just above a photo of Trump giving his speech, the five-point headline read, “A call for bipartisanship”

The Twitter backlash from the anti-Trump resistance was bitter and immediate — some 3000 replies, almost all of them negative. Obviously, a headline that reported something accurate and positive about the president will always be unacceptable to those on the left. And so, within the hour, the Washington Post seemingly decided to soothe the mob with the news that the front page “was updated after the first edition. Here is the final front page.”

The final page’s headline is the much more anodyne “A ‘new American moment.'”

The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald noted that he found this change “amazing.” On his verified Twitter account, Greenwald wrote, [I]t’s definitely amazing and new to watch a major newspaper in real time change its big, trumpeted headline in order to appease a Twitter backlash.”

Not sure if it's good or bad, but it's definitely amazing and new to watch a major newspaper in real time change its big, trumpeted headline in order to appease a Twitter backlash pic.twitter.com/lLYrciRzl1

Almost immediately, Post staffers attempted to explain away what happened, but also had to admit that they had no idea what had happened, or even if such a thing had ever happened before:

I don’t work on A1 and don’t know the specifics of last night’s decision. But in general, headlines change between editions all the time. The deadline for the first one was barely after the speech ended. (There’s a whole new story on the final page, too.)

Fair enough. But I haven't ever seen a newspaper tout its print headline this way, only to change it after a massive Twitter backlash. The fact that the Post put its "updated" headline under the first tweet that provoked so much anger at least suggests a causal connection.

Entirely different stories under different bylines in the two editions. @fahrenthold was (faster) writing for web/first edition; @PhilipRucker and I for later editions. How we’ve always done it in the 8 years I’ve been here.

Are you aware of any other instances where the Post trumpeted its print headline this way, only to change it the same night and tweet out a different one? I don't recall that happening, which isn't the same as saying it never has. Did the backlash play no role in the change?

Even before the escalating fake news crisis that hit this last year, among mainstream Americans, the national media has long been seen as a highly partisan, provincial, hostile, and discredited institution. The only audience the media really has left is the far-left, which is why many believe outlets like the Post (CNN is another example) are willing to serially-humiliate themselves by catering to them in this way.